See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/249901126

Shared Leadership for Teacher and Student Learning

Article  in  Theory Into Practice · May 2006

DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4502_4

CITATIONS READS

53 2,745

2 authors:

Susan M. Printy Helen M. Marks

Michigan State University The Ohio State University
16 PUBLICATIONS   1,211 CITATIONS    24 PUBLICATIONS   3,489 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Helen M. Marks on 11 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

THEORY INTO PRACTICE, 45(2), 125–132
Susan M. Printy
Helen M. Marks
Shared Leadership
for Teacher and Student Learning
The article synthesizes research findings from
studies examining how principals and teachers
contribute to shared instructional leadership and
the relationship of shared instructional leadership
to teacher and student learning. Principals and
teachers contribute to the leadership equation in
each school in different ways, according to school
context and personnel, but an important finding is
that the ways in which teachers and principals
lead are in tension. It is this tension, however, that
is characteristic of leadership in schools that
make steady, incremental, and effective instruc-
tional improvement. Teachers learn more when
teachers and principals find balance in the grad-
ual movement between the status quo and inten-
tional change. Two other factors enhance teacher
learning: the shared belief that teachers can and
must educate every student, and respectful and
open relationships among colleagues. With these
conditions, teachers learn to be better teachers
and student achievement increases.
Susan M. Printy is an Assistant Professor of Education
at Michigan State University. Helen Marks is an Associ-
ate Professor of Education at The Ohio State University.
Correspondence should be addressed to Susan M.
Printy, 412 Erickson Hall, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI 48824. E-mail: sprinty@msu.edu
P ROMPTED BY CHANGES in how work is man-
aged in schools and in response to heightened
expectations for student learning, scholars have
focused inquiry on shared forms of education-
al leadership. In schools, teachers frequently work
in teams, but without formal leadership. Such
teaming structures are often interdisciplinary, with
various members contributing differing kinds of
curricular or instructional expertise. School ad-
ministrators may or may not be connected to these
endeavors. As educational scholars rethink the in-
structional role of school leaders, the concept of
shared leadership has moved to the forefront of
leadership approaches (Murphy, 2002). This move
results primarily from the recognition that teach-
ers and principals have leadership impact on the
learning that occurs in schools.
We have investigated how teachers and princi-
pals contribute uniquely to shared instructional
leadership. In our view, teachers contribute to in-
structional leadership when they interact produc-
tively with other adults in the school around school
reform efforts, learn with their school colleagues,
seek to improve their own professional practice,
and expect others to do the same. As instructional
leaders, principals invest teachers with resources
and instructional support and maintain the congru-
ence and consistency of the educational program.
125
Learning, Teaching, Leading: A Global Perspective
Principals put teachers who wish to learn in contact
with other innovative teachers, support organiza-
tional processes for discussion and consideration of
curricular issues, and provide feedback based on
student learning outcomes (Marks & Printy, 2003;
Printy & Marks, 2004; Printy, Marks, & Bowers, in
review). An important finding of our work is that
the ways in which teachers and principals lead are
somewhat in tension. It is this tension, however, that
is characteristic of leadership in schools that make
steady, incremental, and effective instructional
improvement.
In this article, we highlight what we have
learned about shared instructional leadership
through several studies.1 First, we discuss three his-
torical trends that give primacy to shared leadership
orientations in schools. Next, concentrating on
ways in which leadership influences teaching and
learning, we make five observations about shared
leadership that seem important for all schools. Each
observation emerged as a pattern in our quantitative
research. We accompany these comments with de-
tails of shared leadership from an elementary
school and a high school that we have studied
closely, to give a picture of what these patterns look
like in actual school settings. Finally, we conclude
the article with a discussion of the tension resulting
from the unique leadership contributions of teach-
ers and principals and consider how that tension
contributes to better teaching and learning.
Shared Leadership
Although shared leadership has extensive his-
torical underpinnings in the organizational litera-
ture, it remains poorly understood (see Pearce &
Conger, 2003, for a review of the relevant litera-
ture). In charting thematically the change from
emphasis on an individual leader to recognition of
the potential of shared leadership, Fletcher and
Käufer (2003) traced three shifts in leadership
thinking. The first shift describes leadership as
distributed and interdependent. Rather than a set
of attributes or behaviors found in formal, hierar-
chical leaders, leadership is a set of practices or
tasks that can, and should, be carried out by people
126
at all levels of the organization (Firestone, 1996;
Kouzes & Posner, 2002; Spillane, Halverson, &
Diamond, 2001). The second shift points to lead-
ership as embedded in social interaction. Essen-
tially, leadership is created by leaders and follow-
ers together (Burns, 1978). It is a dynamic,
multidirectional, collective activity that takes
place in and through relationships and webs of in-
fluence among individuals who have common in-
terests and goals (Drath & Palus, 1994; Wenger,
1998). The third shift emphasizes leadership
within a process of learning—undertaken by indi-
viduals and by groups—that results in greater
shared understanding and, ultimately, positive ac-
tion (Argyris & Schön, 1996; Printy et al., in
review). Leadership for learning calls attention to
the importance of individual skill development
(e.g., instructional strategies, self-awareness) and
group process and relational skills (e.g., approach
to conflict, openness, and vulnerability). Our ap-
proach to shared instructional leadership incorpo-
rates these three emphases as we seek to under-
stand the instructional leadership contributions of
teachers and principals.
Shared Instructional Leadership
In a number of studies, we have found strong
relationships between leading, learning, and
teaching. In this section, we distill our findings
into five observations about shared instructional
leadership and bring the comments to life by look-
ing inside two schools, an elementary and a high
school, where shared leadership is highly devel-
oped. The first observation establishes a point of
departure for thinking about shared leadership, the
second and third observations elaborate teachers’
and principals’ leadership contributions, and the
fourth and fifth observations discuss some results
of shared leadership.
Interaction is the Basis for Learning
and Leadership
In schools with high quality teaching and
learning, teachers interact regularly with their
Printy and Marks
colleagues: their teaching team, grade level team,
members of their subject department, or the en-
tire school faculty and administrative staff
(Marks & Printy, 2003; Printy & Marks, 2004).
Through their discussions and shared experi-
ences, teachers establish a purpose for their work
together, they develop clarity about what is val-
ued and what their focus for the future is, and
they establish ways of working together
(Wenger, 1998). In effective schools, teaching is
a social practice, not an individual one, and inter-
action with school colleagues is a primary source
of teacher learning.
To benefit from learning opportunities within
the school and provide opportunities for teacher
leadership, relationships among administrators
and teachers must be open and equitable. Our
case study schools show evidence of this open-
ness. At Ashley Elementary School, a K–5 urban
school located in the deep South, faculty mem-
bers comment on the encouragement, support,
recognition, and appreciation they receive from
other faculty members, as well as from the prin-
cipal. They identify multiple sources of motiva-
tion—teachers who inspire them to tackle diffi-
cult problems just as the principal does. At
Flinders High School, a large urban school lo-
cated in the West, the principal is in and out of
classrooms frequently, speaking individually
with teachers. Openness among teachers reflects
their desire to learn with and from each other.
Professional development is organized and pre-
sented on-site by teaching colleagues, peer ob-
servations are frequent, and mentors work with
inexperienced or struggling teachers. At both
schools, equalized resources encourage collegial
relationships. For instance, the Ashley principal
took funding designated for the gifted/talented
program and applied it to a schoolwide initiative
instead. Flinders mentor teachers gave their re-
lease time to other teachers so the teachers could
visit the classrooms of faculty members who of-
fered to help them learn. Our case study schools
offer evidence that trust, a defining characteristic
of each school’s climate, facilitates interaction. It
also appears that trust deepens or becomes stron-
ger with consistent interaction.
Shared Leadership for Teacher and Student Learning
Teachers Make Important Contributions
to Instructional Leadership
Teachers need to talk with each other to better
understand how to approach their work, including
such things as what expectations they should have
for their students, how to teach the new mathemat-
ics curriculum, what the revised professional de-
velopment policy really means, and how they
should respond to changing state standards (Printy
& Marks, 2004). Depending on the topic of dis-
cussion, teachers meet with different groups, or
communities, of teachers to learn how to be better
teachers. Leadership within such learning com-
munities is often informal and emergent; in fact,
designated or formal leaders typically do not
guide discussions (Drath & Palus, 1994). Rather,
in helping fellow teachers make sense of the reali-
ties of their professional lives, certain individuals
within the group come to be understood as leaders
by other members of the group. These informal
teacher leaders help their colleagues to clarify val-
ues, frame problems, set goals, argue respectfully,
construct and test theories, reach agreement, and
design documents that guide their work. Leaders
are able to translate private or collective meanings
publicly in a way that creates new frameworks for
interpretation and understanding. Framing various
contingencies in new ways helps teachers make
sense of their situations. Skilled participation in
such sense-making discussions makes leaders out
of teachers.
At Ashley, for example, teachers freely ask
questions at regular meetings of the School Advi-
sory Council. Before prematurely taking sides on
issues, teachers dialogue and seek to understand
others’ perspectives. The principal indicated that
almost all conversation in the school is related to
professional concerns. “We do a lot of it … we’re
not afraid to ask about anything. We keep people
well informed with the politics, budget, school
board.” Teacher initiative and participation in im-
portant decisions often takes place on smaller
committees related to instructional processes. For
example, fifth-grade teachers decided to hire
full-time aides for their classrooms and to keep
class sizes a bit larger rather than hiring another
127
Learning, Teaching, Leading: A Global Perspective
full-time teacher. In another case, teachers ar-
ranged an isolated 2-year multiage loop to better
serve a group of at-risk students and still meet dis-
trict requirements for special education. Ashley
teachers step into leadership roles in specific do-
mains such as professional development, grant
writing, scheduling, or advocating for at-risk stu-
dents. According to the words of a teacher, “Every
teacher has … her own little story, her own little
horn, her own something about her, and she wants
to grow even more fully. I think we all have some
unique something about us that we can share and
give here.”
Many of the Flinders teachers served on a com-
mittee charged with establishing a set of educa-
tional specifications for the start-up of the school
some years earlier. In the context of that commit-
tee, they provided initial leadership for school re-
form practices, the development of interdisciplin-
ary units, and the piloting of the math curriculum.
Flinders teachers value participation on commit-
tees, attendance at meetings, and other forms of in-
volvement. One teacher exclaimed, “I love to be
involved in decision making. … I can be as in-
volved as I want to. I think that’s true of other peo-
ple. It’s a process that culls potential leaders and
gives them a route to become leaders—like the
team leaders. Good leaders are emerging from that.”
Principals Play a Pivotal Role
in Instructional Leadership
How school principals engage their teachers in
school initiatives and concerns is critical in devel-
oping extensive shared leadership. Principals cre-
ate conditions for teacher interaction, including
structures and policies that formalize ways in
which teachers are expected to work together and
processes for doing so (Printy, 2002; Printy &
Marks, 2004). Whether by invitation or appoint-
ment, principals control, to some degree, who sits
on various committees or participates in other de-
cision making settings. They establish teaching
schedules that provide common planning time.
They use and encourage processes that facilitate
democratic decisions. For instance, at Flinders, a
process protocol intended to bring discipline to the
128
exchange of ideas and to reduce personality con-
flicts is used without exception for all meetings.
At Ashley, the staff feels fully involved in the deci-
sion-making process: “[Participation] makes you
feel like a professional and also makes you feel re-
sponsible for the whole school, not just your class
of students.” When the staff or committee is un-
able to reach a decision, the Ashley principal often
refuses to make one, turning the matter back to her
staff.
In addition to establishing structures and pro-
cesses for teacher involvement, principals set
goals and expectations for the school as a whole.
When principals are involved in matters of in-
struction, curriculum, and assessment, they signal
the importance of activities related to teaching and
learning. When Ashley teachers propose some-
thing new, the principal asks a series of questions:
Will the kids learn? How acceptable is it to par-
ents? How will you inform the parents and the dis-
trict? Speaking of this conversation, one teacher
commented that the principal’s final agreement
with a plan is accompanied by accountability for
results. The principal’s expectations are clear and
in the open, and there is general acknowledgement
that her high expectations trickle down to teach-
ers. The principal, in fact, believes that teachers
provide each other feedback that leads to an inter-
nal sense of accountability. She says, “I think our
pressures are internal. … We could do half of what
we’re doing and be successful, but it’s not enough
for us.” The Flinders principal establishes expec-
tations in large part by disseminating information
related to academic matters:
I want to make sure when I’m [speaking to teachers
at faculty meetings that] I’m talking about student
achievement and what they are doing to help our
kids be the best they can be. … I have to keep it out
there in the forefront. Grade distribution, GPAs. …
All of this information I’m bombarding them with so
that they will know that this is important for us here
at Flinders High.
In both schools, the principals monitor student
learning closely to see that schoolwide expecta-
tions for learning are met, and they regularly pro-
Printy and Marks
vide feedback on the results to the entire teaching
staff and to individual teachers as necessary.
Finally, principals who can inspire and moti-
vate teachers are more likely to share leadership
with teachers. One way they do this is by formulat-
ing a clear and simple vision for the school that en-
courages buy-in from teachers. Such a vision is
often rather generic and open to individual inter-
pretation. At Ashley, for instance, the vision most
often expressed is: “All students can learn and
teachers are responsible for helping them learn.”
At Flinders, the vision that the faculty communi-
cate is: “Make success an everyday occurrence for
all students.” Although teachers say that they have
common understandings about these statements,
the ways teachers explain the vision vary widely
within each school. Teachers interpret the vision
situationally, in a way that makes sense for them.
It is import that in both schools, the vision state-
ments and the values that underlie them address
student learning and equity. The statements focus
attention and resources on instructional processes
and also express the goal of academic achieve-
ment by all students. No matter how brief or how
ambiguous, these commonly understood visions
have moral power. It is perhaps the moral import
of shared understandings that encourages teachers
to extraordinary efforts even as they are subjected
to relatively close supervision and monitoring.
The moral component of a vision might be an ex-
planatory factor in whether or not a principal is
able to motivate teachers to engage in the difficult
work that leadership for learning entails.
Shared Leadership Provides Coherence
and Stability
When teachers interact with each other fre-
quently and when they share leadership responsi-
bilities with administrators, strong norms and stan-
dards for their professional work take shape over
time (Printy & Marks, 2004). Although individual
teachers might employ different instructional
strategies, common agreements tend to emerge
about the content of courses, the pacing of instruc-
tion, and the level of rigor or intellectual chal-
lenge. These norms serve as a stabilizing force,
Shared Leadership for Teacher and Student Learning
as they persist across academic years (Wenger,
1998). Principals, who have a broader view of the
instructional program across the school, play an
important role in assuring that teachers offer stu-
dents a coherent educational experience.
In both of our case study schools, teachers
earned their positions because they were per-
ceived to be expert teachers. Recognizing their
level of expertise, principals set high expectations
for teaching, learning, and achievement, and hold
themselves accountable for providing teachers the
necessary resources and support to do their work
appropriately. Teachers also establish more infor-
mal expectations for colleagues as to the kind of
effort that earns affirmation and approval. At
Ashley and Flinders, slack is not tolerated, and
nonconforming teachers are largely ignored or
pressured to leave. Concerned about the consis-
tency of courses at the same level (e.g., Algebra 1),
departmental leaders at Flinders encouraged the
use of end-of-year exams to pressure lax teachers
into meeting agreed-on standards. At both
schools, teachers and administrators monitor stu-
dent progress closely; at Flinders a school-wide
committee also serves an oversight function.
Teachers, as this example shows, hold each
other accountable to the social contract that
emerges in the course of day to day practice. Bass
and Steidlmeier (1999, p. 185) described this type
of leadership: “It depends on granting the same
liberty and opportunity to others that one claims
for oneself, on telling the truth, keeping prom-
ises.” By working together to ensure that the qual-
ity of teaching and learning remains at the stan-
dard that has been agreed on (even if informally),
teachers and principals who share leadership en-
sure coherence and stability of the instructional
program.
Shared Leadership is Essential
for Innovation
The powerful interpersonal dynamics de-
scribed partially explain why schools are more
likely to demonstrate incremental improvement
than undergo substantial reform. The tendency to
maintain the status quo through shared under-
129
Learning, Teaching, Leading: A Global Perspective
standings and expectations actually serves to slow
down learning that might result in dramatic, per-
haps unwarranted, change. Nevertheless, innova-
tion and improvement do occur in schools with
shared leadership, with encouragement for change
coming from principals and teachers (Marks &
Printy, 2003).
The extent to which teachers interact with col-
leagues has some relationship to innovation. For-
mal learning arrangements (e.g., professional de-
velopment, curricular committees, or problem
solving sessions) put colleagues together to strug-
gle with uncertainties and receive support,
mentoring, and coaching—and ultimately—to
learn new technologies that will improve their
practice (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin,
1995). Even without formal arrangements, in-
structional improvement is more likely if teachers
have the opportunity to meet with other teachers
who have different ideas, such as teachers from
other teaching teams, grade levels, or schools
(Coburn, 2001; Hargreaves & Macmillan, 1995).
In contrast, teachers who spend time with the
same small group of teachers regularly are more
likely to continue practices that have worked for
them in the past (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979).
This is one reason why schoolwide involvement is
an important contributor to change in educational
practice.
Ashley Elementary and Flinders High School
have structured occasions for teachers to present
their ideas for feedback, help other teachers learn,
and plan together. The entire Ashley faculty meets
regularly during School Advisory Council meet-
ings, where teachers report speaking freely. Due to
the large number of teachers in the high school,
all-faculty sessions are rare at Flinders; instead a
core of teacher leaders (perhaps 20% of the fac-
ulty) serve on three or four committees each. This
overlapping membership spurs the flow of infor-
mation throughout the school and keeps teachers
involved in, and abreast, of changes.
The principal’s attitude toward innovation is
also a critical factor. The Ashley principal encour-
ages teachers to take risks in their teaching. One
teacher commented, “If you’re not in change
mode, you’re not serving kids.” From another,
“[The principal] want[s] you to take risks, so if
130
you do and you fail, it’s okay. [She] likes to hear
the fact that you tried.” A belief championed at
Ashley is that there are many instructional paths
teachers can follow to get to the same destination.
Flinders seeks to hire teachers interested in inno-
vation. The principal focuses on removing barriers
and securing necessary resources. According to
one teacher, “He is here to support teachers. You
don’t find many principals who have that kind of
philosophy, who make sure you can get your job
done so that the students can succeed.” Without
principal encouragement for innovation, teachers
might shy away from taking risks.
Conclusion
Our investigations of shared instructional lead-
ership show that principals alone cannot provide
sufficient leadership influence to systematically
improve the quality of instruction or the level of
student achievement. Nor can teachers, even col-
lectively, supply the required leadership to im-
prove teaching and learning. Best results occur in
schools where principals are strong leaders who
also facilitate leadership by teachers; that is, prin-
cipals are active in instructional matters in concert
with teachers whom they regard as professionals
and full partners. Where schools have the benefit
of shared instructional leadership, faculty mem-
bers offer students their best efforts and students
respond in kind; they are organizations that learn
and perform at high levels (Marks & Printy, 2003).
The patterns apparent in our quantitative re-
search and the images of schools we present from
our qualitative work suggest that shared instruc-
tional leadership capitalizes on tensions apparent
in educators’ work environments. For instance,
both principals acknowledge the instructional ex-
pertise of their teachers, yet they monitor teachers’
performance closely through student progress in-
dicators. Teachers accept innovation and improve-
ment as part of their professional imperative, and
they appreciate autonomy to teach as they see fit.
They also accept the rather extensive supervision
of their abilities as instructors, which is sometimes
accomplished through their teaching peers, in-
stead of an administrator. It appears that there is
Printy and Marks
common agreement among the faculty members
that being professional requires continual im-
provement of their instructional practices and con-
stant surveillance of instructional outcomes to
maintain critical standards of success and identify
student learning difficulties early on.
Our interpretation of these data is that school
leadership influences that promote innovation,
professional discretion, and autonomy are in ten-
sion with commensurate leadership influences, as-
suring that current standards of learning and ex-
pectations for instruction are maintained. There is
a push in each school for coherence and stability
equal to the push for innovation and change. The
schools give evidence of what Deal and Peterson
(1994) called the leadership paradox; that is,
rather than canceling out or undermining the
other, the contradicting leadership tensions sup-
port and complement one another. In essence,
principals and teachers find a way of balancing
these opposites, drawing a unified whole from the
contradictory tendencies toward stability and
change. The vision statements of the schools give
insight into what this essential value that unifies
teachers might be. Simply stated, it is that every
teacher should give every student the best educa-
tion possible every day. With teachers and princi-
pals unified in this belief, the schools do not un-
dertake innovation purely for the sake of change.
Nor do they rest on current practice.
How principals and teachers contribute to the
leadership equation in each school varies accord-
ing to context and personnel. The contradictory
movement toward stability and innovation of in-
struction by teachers and principals is evident in
our quantitative studies, which involve large num-
bers of teachers and schools, so we expect these
influences to exist in most schools. The qualitative
case studies help us understand how and why
these influences occur. When teachers and princi-
pals can balance the contradictory influences to-
ward the status quo and intentional change, teach-
ers are encouraged to improve their practice.
Particularly when teachers share the belief that
they can and must educate every student and when
professional relationships are respectful and open,
they learn to be better teachers. The effect is incre-
mental improvement, steady and sure, rather than
Shared Leadership for Teacher and Student Learning
unquestioned abandonment of current practice
and quick embrace of extensive change. When in-
structional quality moves steadily in an upward di-
rection, student learning is likely to follow a paral-
lel path.
Note
1. Quantitative studies of how teachers interact with
each other use teacher and administrator survey
data from the second follow-up of the National Ed-
ucation Longitudinal Study (Printy, 2002; Printy &
Marks, 2004). The sample for these studies in-
cludes 2,718 high school mathematics and science
teachers and their administrators in 420 schools.
The studies of shared instructional leadership draw
on data from a national sample of 24 schools in the
School Restructuring Study (SRS) conducted by
the Center on Organization and Restructuring of
Schools, including data generated with quantita-
tive and qualitative instruments (Marks & Printy,
2003; Printy et al., in review). Qualitative data
come from extensive case studies prepared by
teams of SRS researchers who spent 2 weeks (fall
and spring of 1 academic year) at each school site.
For a full description of the SRS project, its
schools, and major findings, see Newmann & As-
sociates (1996).
References
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learn-
ing II: Theory, method, and practice. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character,
and authentic transformational leadership behavior.
Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181–217.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper &
Row.
Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about
reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in
their professional communities. Educational Evalu-
ation and Policy Analysis, 23, 145–170.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995).
Policies that support professional development in an
era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 597–604.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1994). The leadership
paradox: Balancing logic and artistry in schools.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
131
Learning, Teaching, Leading: A Global Perspective
Drath, W. H., & Palus, C. J. (1994). Making common
sense: Leadership as meaning-making in a commu-
nity of practice. Greensboro, NC: Center for Cre-
ative Leadership.
Firestone, W.A. (1996). Leadership: Roles or func-
tions? In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P.
Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook
of educational leadership and administration (pp.
395–418). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Fletcher, J. K., & Käufer, K. (2003). Shared leadership:
Paradox and possibility. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Con-
ger (Eds.), Shared leadership (pp. 21–47). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hargreaves, A., & Macmillan, R. (1995). The balk-
anization of secondary school teaching. In L. S.
Siskin & J. W. Little (Eds.), The subjects in question:
Departmental organization and the high school (pp.
141–171). New York: Teachers College Press.
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2002). The leadership chal-
lenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leader-
ship and school performance: Integrating transfor-
mational and instructional leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 39, 370–397.
Murphy, J. (Ed.). (2002). The educational leadership
challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st cen-
tury (One Hundred-First Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education). Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Newmann, F. M., & Associates. (1996). Authentic
achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual
quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
132
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leader-
ship: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Printy, S. M. (2002). Communities of practice: Partici-
pation patterns and professional impact for high
school mathematics and science teachers. Unpub-
lished dissertation. Columbus, OH: Ohio State
University.
Printy, S. M., & Marks, H. M. (2004). Communities of
practice and teacher quality. In W. Hoy & C. Miskel
(Eds.), Educational administration, policy and re-
form: Research and measurement (pp. 91–122).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Printy, S. M., Marks, H. M., & Bowers, A. (in review).
Integrated leadership in schools: How
transformational and transactional elements sup-
port shared instructional leadership. Manuscript in
review.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001).
Investigating school leadership practice: A distrib-
uted perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3),
23–28.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. (1979). Toward a theory
of organizational socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.),
Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp.
209–264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning,
meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
View publication stats